Wolfgang Fritz <wolfgang.fritz@keymile.com> writes:
> > First, I'm not really sure that statement is true. Secondly, it's
> > obvious from looking at Wolfgang's 'svn log' output that file in
> > question *was* explicitly copied.
> >
>
> I think Ben is right. I created the branch1 directory by a svn copy of
> the source directory as a whole.
The log shows that your file was copied explicitly by Subversion, even
though you issue only one "svn copy" command. In other words, from
the perspective of the repository code (and hench, the code that
decides what to show for 'svn log'), you actually did four copies in
the commit shown below:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > r45 | (no author) | 2004-09-14 15:53:26 +0200 (Tue, 14 Sep 2004) | 1 line
> > Changed paths:
> > A /project1/branches/branch1 (from /project1/trunk:1)
> > *** A /project1/branches/branch1/Datei1 (from /project1/trunk/Datei1:8)
> > A /project1/branches/branch1/fdflush.c (from /project1/trunk/fdflush.c:5)
> > A /project1/branches/branch1/modprobe.c (from /project1/trunk/modprobe.c:4)
My guess is that you did a bunch of work without ever running 'svn
update' on your tree, because when you copied trunk it was still at
revision 1. In revision 1, trunk must not have had a child named
Datei1, else that line in 'svn log' would have had an "R" action
(replacement) instead of an "A" (addition).
> This is a test repository for playing, so there would be no problem to
> send you a dump. Unfortunately I've messed around with this repo too
> much and the branch1 directory is in a different state now. I'll try to
> set up a test case again.
That'd be great. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 15 17:02:18 2004